E 407 SPEECH 

.H88 
Copy 1 



OF 



Mr, Cl HUDSON, OE MASSACHUSETTS, 



ON THE 



PORTION OF THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE 



RELATING TO 



THE MEXICAN WAR. 






Delivered in the House of Reps, of the United States, Dec. 16, 1846, 



WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED BY J. & G. S. GIDEON. 
1846. 



SPEECH. 



The House, in Committee of the Whole, having- under consideration the proposition to refer 
the President's Message to the different committees — 

Mr. HUDSON addressed the House as follows : 

Mr. Chairman : I am fully aware of the charges which I shall draw 
down upon myself by expressing the views which I entertain upon the sub- 
ject now before us. The President of the United States himself has set us 
the example of denouncing as traitors all those who dare to speak their 
minds upon this floor and in this country; and his flatterers here have fol- 
lowed his example. But, sir, none of these things move me. I look with 
equal indifference upon the denunciations of the President and of his flat- 
terers on this floor. I will speak my sentiments here or elsewhere, and I 
will speak them freely. If I believe the Executive is wrong in any of his 
measures, I will make the declaration. If 1 believe he has usurped power, 
and trampled upon the Constitution of the United.States, none of the denun- 
ciations or sarcasms of gentlemen on this floor will deter me from giving a full 
expression of my views and feelings. Nothing, I say, that the President 
can say or do, will deter me in any degree from a full and fair expression of 
my own opinions. Has it come to this, Mr. Chairman, that a President can 
arrogate to himself the war-making power, can trample the Constitution 
under foot, and wantonly involve the nation in war, and the people must 
submit to this atrocity, and justify him and his course, or be branded as 
traitors to their country ? Why, sir, if this doctrine prevails, the more cor- 
rupt an Administration is, if it has the power or the daring to involve this 
nation in a war without cause, the greater is its impunity; for the moment 
it has succeeded in committing that outrage, every mouth must be closed, 
and every one must bow in submission. A doctrine more corrupt was 
never advanced; a sentiment more dastardly was never advocated in a de- 
liberative assembly. Gentlemen, who profess to be the peculiar friends of 
popular rights, may advance doctrines of this character, and they may be 
in perfect accordance with their views and feelings, and in conformity with 
their democracy, but I have too much of the spirit which characterized our 
fathers to submit to dictation from any source whatsoever, whether it be a 
foreign monarch or an American President. 

I believe, Mr. Chairman, the first principal declaration contained in 
the message of the President — that the war exists by the act of Mexico, 
and that we have taken all honorable means to prevent it — to be an untruth ; 
and, entertaining that opinion, I will declare it. here; and I will endeavor, 
in the short time allotted me, to state some of the reasons which lead me to 
that conclusion. 

As to the course, sir, which I shall pursue in future in reference to the 
prosecution of this war, I will say in advance, that I shall judge for myself 
when the cases come up. I will endeavor to do the best I can for the oc- 
casion; to do my duty faithfully under all the circumstances. But, sir, I 
believe thai, if any of our revolutionary patriots were upon this floor; if 
they stood here representing any portion of the people, North or South, and 
my friend over the way, the Chairman of the Committee on Military Af- 
fairs, should come forward in the name of the President, and ask for an in- 



4 

crease of the army, or a new levy of volunteers to prosecute such a war 
this., any one of them would say to him, as the stern old Roman said to 
the emissary of Cresar : 

11 Bid him disband his leg-ions ; 
Restore the Commonwealth to liberty ; 
Submit his actions to the public censure, 
And stand the judgment of a Roman Senate: 
Bid him do this, and Oato is his friend. 
Nay, more ; tin nigh Cato's voice was never raised 
To clear the guilty or to varnish crimes, 
Myself will mount the rostrum in his favor, 
And strive to gain his pardon from the people." 

Such, I believe, would be the language and feelings of those who fought 
the battles of freedom, or deliberated in the halls of Congress in the early 
days of the Republic. But enough of this. 

The message, Mr. Chairman, declares " that the existing wai with Mexico 
was neither desired nor provoked by the United States; on the contrary , all 
honorable means were resorted to to avert it '." This declaration I pronounce 
an absolute untruth; and it will be the object of my remarks to sustain this 
position. I believe the President, in making that declaration, has made a 
statement which is not supported, but is in reality contradicted, by the facts 
in the case. How does the President attempt, to sustain this declaration? 
Why, sir, the first charge he brings against Mexico is, that she has commit- 
ted spoliations upon our commerce, and has refused to make reparation-. 
Now, my first remark in relation to this part of the message is, that it is 
hardly magnanimous in the President of the United States to go behind the 
treaty of 1839. Suppose Mexico was guilty of faults previous to that pe- 
riod, she confessed (hose faults in that treaty and promised reparation. That 
should have induced him to stop short at that period. By the treaty of 
1S39. a joint commission was created to examine and audit the claims of 
our citizens. That commission remained in session until the expiration of 
the period to which it was limited by the treaty; and they awarded to our 
citizens s'i .026 .139. Mexico represented to us subsequently that, owing to 
the embarrassed state of her finances, she could not conveniently make these 
payments at the time specified , and another treaty was entered into by the 
two Governments in 1843, in which it, was stipulated that Mexico should pay 
the interest on this sum up to April 30th, 1843, and then pay the principal, with 
accruing interest, in five years — to be paid in quarterly instalments. Now,. 
I do not justify Mexico in the course she has pursued subsequently to this 
treaty. 1 am willing to admit that her conduct deserves rebuke and cen- 
sure. At the same time I am compelled to acknowledge that there are 
some circumstances in this case which go to mitigate the enormity of her 
proceedings. Such was the condition of the affairs of that country, and 
such the desire of her Government to meet the instalments provided for in 
that treaty, that Santa Anna levied a forced loan, apportioned among seve- 
ral of the provinces or departments of that Government, for the express 
purpose of meeting this indemnity. The first three instalments were paid 
promptly at, the time. When the fourth fell due, Mexico was embarrassed 
in her circumstances, and unable to meet the demands of our citizens. 
This state of things continued until another three months expired, when 
another instalment was payable. She was unable at the time to meet this de- 
mand in money; she, however, contends that she has paid the fourth and 
fifth instalments, and shows the receipt of an agent appointed by our Gov- 
ernment to that effect. That agent, however, contends that he received 



certain orders or drafts on mercantile houses, having a lien upon the Mexi- 
can Treasury, and that these drafts have been dishonored. Out let us hear 
his own words upon this subject. Mr. Toss, our agent, says in a letter to 
Mr. Slidell : 

"For the avowed purpose of liquidating the recognised America; 1 , claims, General Santa Anna, 
the head of the Mexican Government, in May, 1843, decreed the collection of a forced loan, to 
be distributed in certain proportions through the departments of this Republic, and paid at 
periods corresponding to those stipulated in the. convention to that effect with the Govern- 
ment of the United States. This measure, essentially unpopular, could only have emanated 
from a government as absolute as that of Santa Anna then was ; and, even with the aid of his 
unlimited powers, was very imperfectly enforced, while the temptation to a misapplication of 
the funds collected amidst the difficulties by which Santa Anna was surrounded, is sufficiently 
obvious. From these concurring circumstances, the Mexican Government was absolutely un- 
able to pay the instalment which became due in April, 1844; and in July of the same year, 
when another instalment should have been paid, the incapacity of the Government to fulfil its 
engagements had become still greater. The arrears due at that period, on American claims, 
amounted to $274,66,4 67. 

''About this time public attention was directed to the Texan question with relieved force ; and 
amidst the angry excitenwnt ibkich it occasioned, the press found a popular theme for complaint iti the 
payment of the ^mericun claims, and freely advocated its discontinuance. " 

Here we have the declaration of our agent on the spot, that the failure of 
Mexico is in some degree at least chargeable upon ourselves. We all know 
that prior to April 30, 1844, the period at which Mexico became delinquent, 
a treaty was gotten up clandestinely by the President of the United States 
for the annexation of Texas to this country. It is true that that treaty was 
rejected by the Senate. But it was immediately made a question before the 
people, and the candidate of one of the parties — he who is now the Presi- 
dent of the United States — was nominated almost solely because he was 
pledged to annexation. All this was known in Mexico. She saw a direct 
attempt making by our people to despoil her of what she regarded as one 
of her own departments — a portion of her republic. This would naturally 
produce an obstacle in the way of obtaining the means to meet these instal- 
ments. The Mexican Government appear to have acted in good faith, as 
will be seen by their having recourse to a forced loan; and it was not until 
our folly and madness, in relation to Texas, excited her people, that the 
Government failed to comply with its treat}' stipulations. 

Though we were at peace with Mexico, and were required by the law of 
nations, and our treaty stipulations, not to interfere in the contest between 
Mexico and Texas, it is a notorious fact that, from the commencement of 
her revolutionary struggle, our Government permitted our citizens by com- 
panies to organize and embark at noon-day for Texas, to aid her in her 
revolution. Newell, a citizen of the U. S., and now a chaplain in our Na- 
vy, who spent some time in Texas, and who wrote a "History of the Revo- 
lution in Texas," says, "not only in Louisana, but in Tennessee, in Ala- 
bama, in Georgia, and in other States, volunteer companies had been 
enrolled, and money subscribed in aid of Texas. The chivalry of the 
South and West, was roused, and impatient to rush upon her plains. Al- 
ready had the "New Orleans Greys/ 1 and other volunteer companies from 
the Slates, won immortal honor in the fall of Bexar, <fcc." p. 74. 

This interference in her affairs, followed by the threatened annexation of 
Texas, would naturally exasperate Mexico, and render it more difficult for 
her to obtain the means to pay this indemnity. She was in fault in this 
respect, and I fear that an impartial world will not pronounce us faultless 
in this matter. 

But, for the sake of the case, I will admit that Mexico was altogether in 






the wrong. She failed to meet her just debts. But I maintain that this r 
under all the circumstances of the case, was no just cause of war. My 
friend from Ohio (Mr. Giddings) alluded yesterday to the repudiating States 
of this Union, and justly remarked, that many of the gen'Jemen on this 
floor who were so clamorous for war against Mexico, represented States 
which had failed to pay their debts, and have given Great Britain the same 
right to invade their territory and bombard their cities, that we had to attack 
Mexico, so far as the non-payment of debts is concerned. 

I will allude to another instance of repudiation. Mexico is not the only 
nation which has committed depredations upon our commerce. France, 
towards the close of the last century, had been guilty of the same acts of 
violence. We demanded reparation at her hand. She admitted the jus- 
tice of our claim; but, for a valuable consideration, we released her, and 
became ourselves obligated to our citizens, who had been despoiled of their 
property by France. And what has been our treatment towards those citi- 
zens? We have turned a deaf ear to their petitions for half a century. 
But during the last session of the present Congress, a bill was passed grant- 
ing partial relief to our injured citizens. And what was the fate of that 
bill after it left this Capitol ? We all know that it was vetoed by the Presi- 
dent. It was returned with objections of the most extraordinary character,, 
the principal of which were, that the amount due was too large, and had 
been due too long, and that probably Congress had not properly considered 
the subject. Here we see the President of the United States pursuing to- 
wards our own citizens, the very course of conduct for which he arraigns 
Mexico; and, according to his own doctrine, they have as just a cause of 
war against him, as we have against Mexico, on account of her indebted- 
ness. 

Another cause of war set forth by the President, is the refusal of Mexico 
to receive Mr. Slidell. Mr. Chairman, I do not purpose to go into a de- 
tailed examination of the correspondence upon this subject. 

I will simply say, that Mexico apprized this Government in advance that 
the annexation of Texas would be regarded by her as an act of hostility. 
When Texas was annexed, the Mexican minister resident in this country 
demanded his passports and left the country ; and thus diplomatic inter- 
course between this Government and Mexico ceased. Our Government sub- 
sequently sent a message to Mexico to ascertain whether she would open 
diplomatic relations, and receive a minister from the United States. The 
Mexican minister informed us that, although Mexico had just ground of 
complaint against the United States for her conduct in relation to Texas? 
she would receive a commissioner to treat on that subject. And whenever 
Mexico spoke of receiving an agent, from this Government, she was careful 
to use the term " commissioner;" and when there is any explanation what- 
ever, any thing to fix the meaning of the term, it is commissioner to treat 
on the very subject which had been the cause of the suspension of diplo- 
matic relations. A minister was sent to Mexico, but in what character did 
he appear? In the character of a special commissioner? No ; he went as 
an u envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary," to reside near the 
Government of Mexico. He was authorized not to treat specially upon the 
subject which had interrupted our diplomatic relations, but upon all subjects 
in dispute between the two Governments ; and he demanded a reception as 
a resident minister in Mexico, clothed with full powers. To his request 
Mexico replied, that the intercourse between the two Governments was sus- 
pended on account of the annexation of Texas ., and if they were to receive 



a minister resident in the country, it would be confessing that annexation 
was no just cause for the recall of their minister; and that they could not 
do it consistently with their honor and with the usage of nations ; that they 
would receive a commissioner — and they made this declaration to the last — 
a commissioner to treat upon the subject which had interrupted our rela- 
tions ; and when that was disposed of, they would receive a minister resi- 
dent. Now, it may be said, that this was special pleading ; an afterthought 
on the part of Mexico. Well, suppose it was ; was there not something of 
the same character on our part? They declared to the last, that if we would 
send a commissioner to treat upon the subject which had interrupted our 
diplomatic relations, they would receive him ; and when that was disposed 
of, they would receive a minister resident. We insisted that they must re- 
ceive a minister resident, or none at all. Now, here are the facts in the 
case. I do not undertake to decide which was in the right, and which in 
the wrong : there seems to be a little special pleading on both sides of the 
question. One nation or the other ought to have yielded. With our 
means, our character and standing before the world, we could have afforded 
to be generous, better perhaps than Mexico. 

Admitting, however, that Mexico was more in the wrong than we, I con- 
tend that there was no just cause of war in this case. Any nation, if she 
pleases, has a right to stand in an independent position, and refuse to open 
diplomatic relations with other Powers. It may be unwise in them to do 
it ; but I have yet to learn that it is a just cause of war. There has been a 
little black republic in our own neighborhood, with whom we have refused 
to interchange these civilities. The subject has frequently been brought up 
in this House, and voted down by the very men who feel so indignant to- 
wards Mexico because she would not receive Mr. Slidell as resident minis- 
ter. China, 1 believe, to this day, receives no minister resident near her 
seat of government from any nation whatever. This may be folly, but it 
is not such a crime as will justify a war. 

But the gravest charge brought forward by the President, and one which 
deserves more consideration than any other, is this : Mexico passed the 
boundary of the United States, invaded our territory, and shed Jimcrican 
blood upon American, soil. If this charge was sustained, I admit that it 
would furnish a just cause of war. But this statement of the President, 
bold and frank, plain and intelligible as it is, is unfortunately wanting in 
justice and truth. The facts in the case do not in any degree sustain the 
President, but they are totally irreconcilable with his position, as I shall 
attempt to show. 

Mexico passed our boundary ! Our army, by the unjustifiable orders of 
the President, passed the boundary of Mexico. Mexico commenced hostili- 
ties ! The President himself was the aggressor. He ordered the army into 
Mexico ; he commenced hostilities, not only without law, but in direct vio- 
lation of the first principles of our organic law — exercising the war-making 
power, and thereby trenching upon the prerogative of Congress; and that 
too, while they were in session, and could have been consulted at any 
moment. 

This is a just statement of the case. I will, however, give the President 
the full benefit of all the arguments he employs, and all the statements bre 
makes in support of his position. 

In the first place, however, I wish to say that Texas, whatever were her 
boundaries, held by the right of revolution. As my friend from Tennessee 
(Mr. Gentry) observed, just as far as she extended her authority by the 



8 

sword, and was able to maintain her jurisdiction, there her boundaries are 
to be sought. It matters not whether she was originally bounded by the 
Nueces or the Rio Grande ; the question as to her original boundary is en- 
tirely superseded. She rebelled against the parent country ; and just so far 
as she extended her arms and maintained her authority, just so far were her 
boundaries extended. She held her territory by ihe title by which she held 
herself — the right of revolution. But , while her boundary was formerly the 
Nueces, I admit she did extend her authority over that river, so as to include 
Corpus Christi , and a few small settlements on the western bank of that 
river. I make this statement in advance, because the argument of the Pre- 
sident, which I shall have occasion to notice hereafter, requires that this fact 
be kept distinctly in view. 

1 say, then, that the boundary of Texas, in this part of her dominion, 
was confined within the immediate valley of the Nueces. She made sev- 
eral attempts to extend her authority beyond, but she was unsuccessful; her 
forces did, in some instances, penetrate into the country beyond that valley, 
but they were utterly destroyed, captured, or put to death; and in every ex- 
pedition beyond that point Texas utterly failed. 

But now for the President's arguments in support of his position. And 
what are they? Texas (he says) was included originally in the Louisiana 
cession. Well, suppose that true — what then? Why, it has nothing to do 
with the question. If Texas once belonged to the United States, it was 
ceded to Spain, and hence we have no claim to it on that account. Then, 
the President speaks of the treaty with Santa Anna. 1 shall not, Mr. 
Chairman, dwell upon this subject. My first remark is, that there was no 
treaty made with Santa Anna — nothing that deserves the name of treaty. 
In the second place, he was a prisoner, and not so competent to treat; and, 
third, if a treaty had been made and ratified, that treaty was violated by 
Texas herself; for one of the principal reasons why Santa Anna was in- 
duced to enter into that treaty, arrangement, or whatever it may be called, 
was, that he should be liberated and sent under the protection of Texas to 
V r era Cruz. He did embark for that city, but the populace demanded his 
detention, and he was taken from the vessel; he was brought back into 
Texas and kept a prisoner in close confinement. He himself makes this 
charge against the Texan Government, and the President of Texas admits 
it to be true, and regrets the occurrence. So that, if a treaty had been 
entered into, the violation of treaty by Texas is a good reason why it should 
have no binding force. But there never was a treaty : there was an ar- 
rangement, no doubt, between General Houston and Santa Anna : but what 
is peifectly conclusive upon this subject is, that this very agreement provided 
that it should be submitted to their respective governments for ratification, 
-and Mexico refused to ratify it, and hence it was null and void. 

But the President says that the Texan Congress, in 1836, when fixing 
their limits, declared that the Rio Grande, from its mouth to its source, 
was their western boundary. And he spreads this before the country and 
before the world as an argument to justify us in our claim to the Rio Grande. 
Now, Mr. Chairman, if ;he President of the United States, a lawyer in his 
>jw\\ country, should be called upon by one of his clients, and asked wheth- 
er he could prosecute a claim successfully against a neighbor to a por- 
tion of land; and at, the same time should inform him that he had no other 
title to it than the declaration of the individual from whom he had leceived 
his quit-claim deed, do you suppose he could hesitate a single moment in 

I ling him that he had no cause whatever? I do not believe that there is 



a pettifogger in the country who would hesitate to declare that there was no 
foundation for the claim. And still the President of the United States, the 
head of a great nation, in a public document, spread before the country and 
the world, as a justification of an act of war, brings forward that considera- 
tion, as evidence that the country to the Rio Grande was ours ! Who does 
not blush for the honor of his country under circumstances like these ! 

But the President says this was claimed by Texas — that Texas declared 
the Rio Grande to be her western boundary. Well, Mexico declared the 
Sabine to be her eastern boundary. And what does that prove? As much 
in one case as in the other. The declaration of Mexico is as conclusive as 
that of Texas ; neither of them deserves one moment's consideration. And 
the President himself, by admitting that New Mexico was a department of 
Mexico, and Santa Fe its capital; and that it was conquered by our arms, 
virtually admits that this argument is deserving of no consideration. He 
knows that boundaries can be established only by treaty or by (he sword, 
and that neither of these can be aileged in favor of the claim of Texas to 
the Rio Grande. 

But there is another argument of the President which deserves notice, 
and it is this: Texas, says he, had extended her authority beyond the 
Nueces; and, to sum up all his declarations, because they all fall under the 
same general principle, they amount to this: Texas had extended her juris- 
diction beyond the Nueces; she had a custom-house at Corpus Christi, on 
ihe immediate western bank of that river; the people living on that river, 
in the immediate valley of the Nueces, had been represented in the Texan 
Congress, and had assented to annexation to the United States, and were 
included within one of the congressional districts of Texas; the United 
States, by an act of her Congress, had established a custom-house at Corpus 
Christi: all these things were true just over the river, on the west bank, in the 
immediate valley of the Nueces, and therefore — therefore what ? Therefore 
we had a title to the country some one hundred or hundred and fifty miles 
further, to the Rio Grande, where not one of these declarations will hold 
good! Beyond the Nueces, and therefore to the Rio Grande! Now, what 
kind of logic is this? 

Why, Mr. Chairman, suppose that a' question had arisen before the Vir- 
ginia portion of this District had been re-ceded, involving the boundary of 
the District, and it could be proved that the District extended south of the 
Potomac; that Alexandria and Jackson city were subject to the laws of the 
District; and from this it should be inferred that the District extended to the 
Mississippi — what would be thought of such an argument? It would be 
treated with deserved ridicule. .But this is the logic of the message. Be- 
yond the Potomac, and therefore to the Mississippi — is just as sound as 
beyond the Nueces, and therefore to the Rio Grande. 

Beyond the Nueces, and therefore to the Rio Grande ! Who does 
not see the utter absurdity of such reasoning? And yet this is all that 
there is in the President's boasted argument. He states several facts, 
which he knows will apply to Corpus Christi and a narrow strip of Ian/ 
on the west bank of the Nueces, and to this alone ; and then, be<£f ue 
they are beyond the Nueces, he would have us believe that the sag n0 ^[ ie 
over the whole country to the Rio Grande, which every one kno.' ecu( j ve a t- 
fact. And yet, by this artful and deceptive statement, tlv^f'ygymation. 
tempts to hide his own misconduct, to cover up his gros-^ '?. ^ t j ie cr y of 
1 speak plainly on this subject, for the occasion den*'" ' 
traitor from the President himself shall not deter '~ c ' 



10 

I have now examined all the arguments adduced by the Executive to 
prove our title to the whole country to the Rio Grande; and, if they have 
any force, I confess I have been unable to perceive it. But, while the Ex- 
ecutive has failed to prove our title to the Rio Grande, and therefore failed 
to justify his own conduct in ordering General Taylor to that river; there is 
abundant evidence that the valley of the Rio Grande never belonged to 
Texas, and hence does not belong to the United States; and this evidence 
must be known to the Executive. Did he not know that Santa Fe was on 
the eastern side of the Rio Grande, and that we had in a great variety of 
ways acknowledged that that was a Mexican city? Did he not know that 
our Government interceded with Mexico for Kendall and other American 
citizens taken in the famous Santa Pe expedition ; and that in that corres- 
pondence we admitted that New Mexico was justly a part of the Mexican 
Republic ? Was he ignorant of the fact that we had a consul residing at 
Santa Fe, and that by an act of our Congress, passed March 3d, 1845, in 
relation to drawbacks, we provided that goods sent to Santa Fe,in Mexi- 
co, should be entitled to that drawback? Has he forgotten the fact that 
Mr. Secretary Walker, in his report on the finances, in December last, 
speaks of the operation of that act , and recognises Santa Fe as a part of Mexi«» 
co? All these, facts are well known to him, and hence he tells us in this 
very message that General Kearney had taken New Mexico and Santa Fe, 
its capital, and established a territorial Government there. W T hat, then, be- 
comes of his argument, founded on the act of the Texan Congress, that the 
Rio Grande from its mouth to its source, was their western boundary. That 
argument is just as good on one part of the river as on the other ; just as 
strong in New Mexico as in Tamaulipas; as conclusive at Santa Fe as at 
Santiago. The President in one part of his message admits its falsity in 
New Mexico, and hence yields the whole argument. 

All the documents connected with this whole matter show that the boun- 
dary of Texas could not have been the Rio Grande. The Tyler treaty 
seemed to take it for granted that we should hold the whole country; but 
Mr. Calhoun, more sagacious than the President, was careful to inform the 
Mexican Government that the boundary was open to treaty, and would be 
settled on liberal terms. Mr. Benton, in discussing that treaty, showed 
most conclusively that Texas never owned within a hundred miles of the 
Rio Grande; and so forcible was his argument, that when the joint resolu- 
tion was prepared the language was guarded: " The territory properly in- 
cluded within and rightfully belonging to Texas." And it was further 
provided that, when erected 'into a State, the General Government will 
claim the right of settling all questions of boundary that may arise with 
other Governments; and the President, in his war message of May last, says 
that he gave Mr. Slidell full power to settle the question of boundary, and 
could not consent to have the question of boundary separated from that of 
our claims upon Mexico. 

Now, sir, all these provisions about boundary are perfectly senseless on 
{^supposition that the Rio Grande is the true boundary. If we justly own 
crotiati6J ver ' ''"' ' ,!llUH ' ii| y i s already settled, and requires and allows none- 
himself "sf$£ n tne SUD J ect - Every document submitted by the President 
invaded thei4v e i ncon * ec tness of his oft -repeated declaration, that Mexico 
The coitp v^4J^ tates > ailc ^ convicts linn of a gross misrepresentation. 

our Governn^sul^ 6 ^ 6611 ^^ 001 ? 6130 "' T' Cha T in Te ***J ^ 
"Hed by the President in his annual message of De- 



11 

cember 2, 1845, contains conclusive evidence of the futility of our claim to 
the Rio Grande, the utter falsity of the President's declaration. 

Mr. Donelson, writing to Mr. Buchanan from Galveston, under date of 
June 2, 1845, says: " It is believed that Mexico is concentrating troops on 
the Rio Grande, where Texas as yet has established no posts." 

Under date of June 23, 1845, Mr. Donelson says to the Secretary: "The 
territory between the Nueces and the Rio Grande, you are aware, has been 
in possession of both parties. Texas has held in peace Corpus Christi; 
Mexico has held Santiago. Both parties have had occasional possession of 
Loredo, and other higher points. Mexico, however, has threatened a re- 
newal of the war for the whole of Texas, if she accepts the proposals for an- 
nexation to the Union . If she undertakes such an expedition , she of course 
puts upon the hazard of war the whole claim, and gives us the right of 
going not only to the Rio Grande, but wherever else we may please." 

Here, Mr. Chairman, we have the confession of our own> agent, sent to 
Texas to look after our interests, and to learn the facts in the case, that 
Texas had no posts on the Rio Grande ; that Mexico held Santiago, and 
that our right to go to the Rio Grande would exist only in case of a success- 
ful war with Mexico, which would in fact give us the same right to go any 
where else in Mexico. 

The same confession is made in his note to the Secretary, under date of 
July 2, 1845: " My position is, that we can hold Corpus Christi and all 
other points up the Nueces. If attacked, the right of defence will authorize 
us to expel the Mexicans to the Rio Grande. It is belter for us to await 
the attack than incur the risk of embarrassing the question of annexation 
with the consequences of immediate possession of the territory to the Rio 
Grande. You will find that I have guarded every point." 

In a letter to General Taylor, June 28th, Mr. Donelson uses nearly the 
same language: "The occupation of the country between the Nueces and 
the Rio Grande, you are aware, is a disputed question. Texas holds Cor- 
pus Christi ; Mexico holds Santiago, near the mouth of the Rio Grande. 
The threatened invasion of Texas, however, by Mexico, is founded upon 
the assumption that Texas has no territory independent of Mexico. You 
can safely hold possession of Corpus Christi and all other points up the 
Nueces, and if Mexico attempts to dislodge you, drive her beyond the Rio 
Grande." 

Here we have the repeated confessions of an agent on the spot, who 
"guarded every point," and attempted to make the most of his case, that 
Texas had no possessions west of Coipus Christi, and the other points up 
the river Nueces; and that we could rightfully approach the Rio Grande, 
where Mexico was in possession, only in case of repelling an attack and 
pursuing her defeated forces. 

The President in his message has referred to the offer of Mexico to ac- 
knowledge the independence of Texas on certain conditions, and maintains 
that that act of Mexico is binding upon her, though it was not accepted or 
carried out by Texas. I shall not at this time attempt to controvert tj^ 
doctrine, but will content myself with saying, that if the treaty be vfd' enc j 
one purpose, it is for another. If it settles the question of Texan iSZt, \\\^ & 
ence, it establishes the fact that Texas had no settled w ^t^^]i^ he C alled 
that of the Rio Grande. The preliminary treaty, if such 
provides, in its 3d and 4th articles, as follows: 

u o t •♦ i .i a>- x i c , , t the final treaty. 

3. .Limits and other conditions to be matter of arrangemei 1 ' 



12 

u 4. Texas will be willing to remit disputed points respecting territory, and other matters, to the 
arbitration of umpires.'''' 

This preliminary treaty, signed by the Texan Secretary of State, and ap- 
proved by their President, does not presume that the western boundary of 
Texas is the Rio Grande. On the contrary, it admits that, the boundary is 
in dispute, and is a fair subject for reference to an arbiter. 

But let us see the comment of Mr. Donelson on this subject. Texas 
wished to have the United Slates take military possession up to the Rio 
Grande; but Mr. Donelson, in his note to Mr /Buchanan, July 11, 1845, 
says: 

" The proclamation of a truce between the two nations, (Mexico and Texas,) founded on a 
proposition mutually acceptable to them, leaving the question of boundary not only an open 
one, but Mexico in possession of the east bank of the Rio Grande, seemed to me inconsistent with the 
expectation that, in defence of the claim of Texas, our troops should march immediately to that 
river. What the Executive of Texas had determined not to fight for, but to settle by negotia- 
tion, to say the least of it, could be as well left, to the United States on the same conditions." 

It seems that Texas was anxious, after we had made the proposition of 
annexation, to commence some military expedition, that she might thereby 
extend her limits, or at least confirm her old preposterous claim. Our 
charge in Texas discouraged them in relation to any such movement; and. 
in giving his views to our Government on this subject,, in the same letter 
of July 11th, he says: "It. was apparent that no military expedition, within 
the power of Texas to start at that, late period, could have placed the en- 
tire question of limits beyond the necessity of future negotiation, after the 
acceptance of our proposals. The boundary of Texas, as defined by her 
statutes, runs up the Rio Grande from its mouth in the sea to its source, 
cutting of portions of Tamaulipas , Coahuila , and New Mexico. Above 
the point on the Rio Grande, where it enters New Mexico, there has been 
no occupancy by Texas; and it is obvious, so far as that region is concerned , 
that no military movement could have taken it oat of the category in which 
it is left by the terms of our joint resolution. So, whatever might have 
been the success of the attempt to drive the Mexicans from Loredo and 
other lower points , the difficulty woidd have remained the same in regard 
to the extensive Santa Pe region above." 

Now, it will be seen by this confession of our Charge, made to the Secre- 
tary of State, that Texas never had any possession in New Mexico; that 
the Texan boundary, as described in her statute of 1836, cuts off a large 
portion of three other provinces or departments of Mexico; that the Mexi- 
cans were at that time in possession of " Loredo and other lower points," 
and that no military movements could alter this state of facts, or " place 
the entire question of limits beyond the necessity of future negotiation, af- 
ter the acceptance of our proposals." This is expressly admitted by Mr. 
Donaldson; and so fully satisfied is he that we have no clear title to the 
country to the Rio Grande, that he immediately falls back upon his favorite 
ground, of obtaining it by conquest. "If Mexico undertakes the invasion," 
he, "Texas would then have an immediate right, and so will the Unit- 
by !.Vrf '""''' ( " ''T 1 ' the invasion, andy in doing so, Mexico rnay be disarmed 
der wmcWP at * on °f me R'° Grande by our troops, or by any other surren- 
future preser^L c ' lcumstances °^ wai ma y P oult 0llt as essential to the 

But the proofs of P euce and security." 
Not only the docun^^ slt ^ °^ tne I >res i < ^ en t.' s position does not stop here, 
ments submitted withh^? 11 " 116 ^ with h ' S annual message, but the docu- 
tation of his declaration 'P messa S e in Ma 7 last > contain a perfect refu- 

k Allowing general order shows so conclusive- 



ly that Mexico was in possession in the valley of the Rio Grande, that I 
will give it entire: 

" War Department, July, 8, 1845. 

" Sir : The Department is informed that Mexico has some military establishments on the east side 
of the Rio Grande, which are, and for some time have been, in the actual occupancy of her troops- In 
carrying out the instructions heretofore received, you will be careful to avoid any acts of aggres- 
sion, unless an actual state of war should exist. The Mexican forces at the posts in their pos- 
session, and which have been so, will not be disturbed as long as the relations of peace between 
the United States and Mexico continue. 

WM. L. MARCY. 

" Brig. Gen. Z. Taylor." 

General Taylor, in his official despatch to the Department of War, under 
date of February 26, 1846, says: 

" I have taken occasion to represent to some citizens of Matamoras that the United States 
Government, in occupying the Rio Grande, has no motive of hostility towards Mexico, and 
that the army will, in no case, go beyond the river, unless hostilities should be commenced by 
the Mexicans themselves ; that the Mexicans living on this side icill not be disturbed in any icay by 
the troops ; that they will be protected in all their rights and usages ; and that every thing which 
the army may need will be purchased from them at fair prices. I also stated that, until the 
matter should be finally adjusted between the two Governments, the harbor of Brasos Santiago 
would be open to the free use of the Mexicans, as heretofore. The same views were impressed upon the 
Mexican custom-house officer ai Brazos Santiago by Capt. Hardee, who commanded the escort 
which covered the reconnoissance of Padre Island." 

General Taylor, in his subsequent letters, informs the Executive that, 
on his way from Corpus Chrisd to the Rio Grande, he was met by the 
Mexican cavalry, whose commandei informed our officers that our crossing; 
the Arroyo Colorado would be considered as an act of hostilities; that he 
was also met by a civil deputation, protesting against his occupying the 
country; that, in approaching Point Isabel, he found the place in flames; 
that thejyor^ captain committed the act; that they "found two or three in- 
offensive Mexicans there, the rest having left for Matamoras.^ 

These despatches from General Taylor leave no,doubt as to the posses- 
sion of the country in the valley of the Rio Grande. The Executive says 
that Mexico has military posts there, and General Taylor says that he found 
Mexican soldiers in the country; that there was a Mexican custom-house at 
Brasos Santiago; that the Mexicans had free use of the port and harbor; 
that the port captain at Point Isabel had fired the town; that the Mexicans 
who were living on the east side Rio Grande should not be disturbed; and, 
finally, that they might understand his policy, he issued his proclamation to 
that effect; and, as they were Mexicans, he issued it in their language. 

All these facts show, beyond a doubt, as it seems to me, that our claim to 

the whole country to the Rio Grande is based on no solid foundation. All 

these facts were of course known to the Executive, for they are found in 

documents submitted by himself to Congress. And yet the President, 

trampling upon the rights of a co ordinate branch of the Government, and 

so violating the Constitution he had sworn to support, orders the army into 

the country of a nation with whom we are at peace; and the commanding 

general, acting under his orders, erects a fort and mounts his cannon within 

the range of a Mexican city; blockades the Rio Grande, so as to cut off a p. 

supplies from the Mexican army at. Matamoras; sends out a force undp tnen 

tain Thornton, which is believed to have commenced the attack • nt G omes 

to turn public attention from his own acts of usurpation, the P n " P 'public and 

before Congress in a message, appealing to the sympathies, A, et i American 

declares that Mexico has invaded the United States 

blood upon American soil! , ".■ , A mpr irnn 

A- t\t r<i • • •. . i -j- •• does not evety Ameuum 

IN o.v, Mr. Chairman, is it not humiliating 1- - M - J 



14 

blush for the honor of his country, when he sees the Executive put forth a 
document like the message before us, not only unsustained by facts, but in 
direct opposition to facts, as a justification of the war in which we are now 
engaged? "The Mexicans invaded the United States!" Let the Presi- 
dent, or let the President's friends, have it under the most favorable circum- 
stances the facts will admit. Allow, if you please, that the boundary was 
in dispute, and how stands the case? \Yhy, the boundary is in dispute, 
but Mexico is in possessio?i : and while there is a controversy, a dispute, 
possession furnishes a good title; possession in law is always a good title 
against a trespasser. 

The Texas annexed to the United States extended no farther west than 
the immediate valley of the Nueces. Between that valley and the valley 
of the Rio Grande, is a desert unsettled country. But, when you approach 
the Rio Grande all is Mexican — Mexican people, speaking the Mexican 
language, obeying Mexican laws, and owing allegiance to the Mexican gov- 
ernment. The Mexicans had civil and military possession, and there our 
merchants and traders had been paying duties to Mexican custom-house 
officers. It was so well understood here in Congress, at the time that we 
passed the resolutions of annexation, that Texas did not extend to the Rio 
Grande, that the chairman of the committee who introduced the resolution 
of annexation, Mr. C.J. Ingersoll, declared in his opening speech that 
"the territorial limits of Texas are marked in the configuration of this continent 
by an Almighty hand. The stupendous deserts beween the rivers Nueces 
and Rio Grande are the natural boundaries between the Anglo-Saxon and 
the Mauritania!! races. There ends the valley of the West. There Mex- 
ico begins. While peace is cherished, that boundary will be sacred. Not 
till the spirit of conquest rages, will the people on either side molest or mix 
icith each other." 

Now, with all these /acts staring him in the face, what induced the Pre- 
sident to take this course? My friend from Tennessee (Mr. Gentry) has 
pointed out, unquestionably, the principal motive of action in this case. 
The President wished to distinguish his administration, and he wished to 
distinguish it by a further accession of territoiy ; he wished to acquire a large 
portion of territory in that section of the Union, in order to give the South 
a perpetual preponderance in the councils of the nation. That was un- 
questionably the motive which led him to take that step; and the danger of 
that policy has also been alluded to by my friend this morning; and the 
danger is imminent. The vote taken in this House at the close of the last 
session, is a fair exponent of the feelings of the country. And I will tell 
gentlemen, North and South, that if these Mexican provinces are to be an- 
nexed to the United Slates, a question will grow out of that annexation mo- 
mentous in its character, and one which may lead to a calamity greater than 
the war with Mexico, or any other which has befallen the country. There 
.is a deep feeling in the country against the extension of slavery. There 
thousands upon thousands in the northern section of this Union (and 1 
wnoSJo no fanatics, but to sober, deliberate, and substantial men — men 
means "i1v lne S°°d of the country at heart) who would resist, by every 
inces, if tbjeHLP ower ' tne establishment of slavery in these Mexican prov- 
both strong ancf'v ^ ^ e annexeo ' to tnese United States. This feeling is 
tributino- daily to tfiV anc * tne P rosecut i° n °f tn ' s war °f conquest is con- 
tory crown our arms ^uC ease of that feelin S- Let ,his war S° on > le ^ vic " 
and I fear that our * ^SSJco shall yield up a large portion of her territory; 
access V^ij b e ' more c ] an geious to us than defeat: we 



15 

should have questions of internal regulations, which would be more difficult 
to settle than the boundary between us and Mexico. 

The action of this House on the two million appropriation should teach 
gentlemen a lesson. When that sum was asked for, the friends of the Pre- 
sident, south of Mason and Dixon's line, came forward in a transport at the 
glorious prospect of peace; and they called upon us to forget, all party ties 
and go with them in a body, that the President might be enabled to con- 
clude an honorable treaty. But when a certain proviso was incorporated 
into the bill, every man of them took the alarm, and opposed its passage. 
They knew at the time that, if the Executive wanted this money to bribe 
Paredes, or to hire Santa Anna to return to Mexico, or to fan the flames of 
discoid, or sow the seeds of revolution in that country, or if it was wanted 
for the purchase of territory, it would be just as available with that proviso 
as without. That amendment applied to but a single subject — the exten- 
sion of involuntary servitude — and the united vote of the President's friends 
in the §outh shows with what importance they regarded that provision. 
And let me say, Mr. Chairman, that the South are not alone in their esti- 
mate of this question. When it comes before the people, the North will be 
as united as the South. It will become a question on which there can be 
no compromise, and the integrity of the Union may be involved in the issue. 

The Northern and Southern wings of the Democratic party ought to deal 
fairly with each other on this subject. If the Southern wing are determined 
to establish slavery in any territory they may acquire by the war, let them 
inform their Northern friends of that determination, that there may be no 
misunderstanding between them. They owe it to each other and to their 
respective constituentcies to come out plainly upon this subject. But neither 
wing of the party dares to commit itself openly; they both know that when- 
ever they come out distinctly, and, like men, declare their determination, 
they must break with each other or with their own respective constituentcies. 
Let Northern men say that they will vote for the establishment of slavery in 
any of the territory in question, and they will have an account to settle at 
home which will require all their attention and resources. The people are 
farther advanced on this subject than their representatives. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, as this whole subject of acquisition of territory is 
fraught with so much danger, is it not the dictate of duty and of patriotism 
to consider it well, and to do it in advance? One false step at the outset 
may lead to the most fatal consequence. The very agitation of this ques- 
tion has wrought a mighty change in public opinion within the last six 
months; and if we go on conquering and to conquer, our friends, who are 
anticipating such favorable results from the acquisition of southern territory, 
may find, when it is too late, that, their joy may be turned into mourning, 
and their mirth into heaviness. They may find agitations at home more to 
be dreaded than the armies of Santa Anna, and commotions in the midst 
of them more sanguinary than the revolutions in Mexico. They may find 
that "conquering a peace" abroad may disturb harmony at home, and t 1 
dismembering one Republic may rupture another. If we are to rush 
into foreign conquests, we may bring upon our own country evil? 
patriot can contemplate but with tears. 

That the present war is one of conquest there can be 
letter which has been read this morning, addressed to C 
Secretary of War, puts that question beyond all m 
letter is well understood by the public; an r1 
amounts substantially to this: Mexico nm 




16 

011 446 874" 5 " w 

or by revolution. A regiment of armed emigrants must oe sem-ro ^m*^ 
nia; they must be enlisted with an express condition that they are not to 
return home: they will be sent into California to remain during the war. 
If that province fails into our hands during the war, or is ours on the return 
of peace, they are to remain in that country ; if it is not ours, they will , at the 
conclusion of the war, be marched just across the line into Oregon, and dis- 
chaigpd, with the express understanding that they will immediately return 
to California, raise the standard of revolt, declare themselves independent; 
and, Texas-like, be annexed to the United States. Such, beyond contro- 
versy, was the design of that enterprise; and it shows how low a weak or 
wicked administration may stoop. If we were dealing with the Power be- 
fore whom the President was disposed to quail in the settlement of the Ore- 
gon question, the Administration, even after the return of peace, might be 
called upon for an explanation, if such a letter as that of Secretary Marcy 
should come to their knowledge, and have reference to any of their posses- 
sions. The newly organized governments in New Mexico and California, 
under the direction of the Executive no doubt, show the object "for which 
the war is prosecuted. 

But the President assures us that he does not wish to dismember Mexico ; 
and is ready to makepeace. But on what terms? Mexico, we are told, 
must pay I he expenses of the war. Now, every one knows the poverty of 
that distracted country. Her finances are so deranged that she is scarcely 
able to support her army in the field: so poor, that the main hope of the 
return of peace is founded upon her inability to support the war. Does the 
President believe that Mexico can pay us fifty millions of money to reim- 
burse us for the expenses of the war? Does he not know her utter inabil- 
ity to meet such a demand in specie? Did he not inform us in his two 
million message that Mexico was so poor that she could not conveniently 
wait till the treaty was ratified; and, therefore, he desired the two millions 
so as to be able to pay her in advance, to keep her army quiet until we 
could recall our troops? Mexico pay the expense of the war! This amounts 
to a declaration that she must yield up her territory — the only means of pay- 
ment at her disposal. And so intent is the President upon despoiling Mex- 
ico of possessions, that he has declared to the world that he will prosecute 
the war with vigor; that he will consent to no armistice, but will continue 
the work of butchery and conquest even after a treaty of peace shall have 
been signed by both nations! "The war will continue to be prosecuted with 
vigor until a treaty of peace shall be signed by the parties, and ratified by 
the Mexican Government. " This avowal was distinctly made in his two 
million message — an avowal worthy only of the ages of barbarism. If this 
Administration is not checked in its mad career; if the President is allowed 
to exercise any and every power which may further his ambitious designs, 
the day is not far distant when our free Government will exist only in name, 
^hall he be permitted to go on without rebuke; or shall the People's Rep- 
^^tatives assert their right? It is true that all who speak freely will be 
as traitors; but the People will decide whether devotion to our 
not be as effectually exhibited in defending our Constitution 
under foot. 




